This is the forum dedicated to all 'minor' local psyops - phony murders, kidnappings and whatnot. It has now become evident that the news media constantly feeds the public with entirely fake stories - in order to keep us in eternal fear of our next-door neighbours and fellow citizens.

SacredCowSlayer wrote:But getting the design, order, and shipment done so quickly (roughly 36 hours) seems just a tad unauthentic to say the least.

Woah. Indeed. Way too savvy, even for today's constantly connected folks. It's like Dad trying to be cool by imitating the style of the young to try to reach into their minds. Or "plainsclothes" cops, but all wearing the same jackboots. Inauthenticity is clear on the "news" scale too.

Though, as cultural manipulators that belong to the State and its futurists, hoaxers will always bet on the correct notion that most people in time will forget that the culture was led by artificial responses to tragedies. People argue about when cell phones supposedly worked from airplanes, even though research will tell you that in 2002, the technology barely existed, and so the supposed phone calls said to have been made from the (non-existent) flights could not have been anything but digital fabrications and dramatizations.

So, too, victims and their families seeming to pop up and exist for the sole purpose of driving propaganda narratives may slip by our radars, trained by media to watch out only for the brightest neon blips with song and dance on the Big Radar handed to us.

please don't tell me cops mistreating Black people is a PsyOp, because this is something my friends and I have seen/witnessed/experienced and discuss at length almost daily.

I agree that cops mistreating and harassing black people is a real phenomenon and a very real problem. However, I think that the two major police shooting incidents in the two days prior to the Dallas "shooting" were hoaxes, and I absolutely think they're tied into the Dallas hoax as part of a larger psyop that is seeking to stoke racial tensions or even start a race war (divide and conquer), de-legitimize the blacklivesmatter movement (which is itself a psyop meant to discredit or blackwash genuine protest against police brutality), legitimize the militarization of the police, condition us to permanent martial law AKA "lockdown," killer police robots, etc. etc.

The two incidents I'm referring to are the alleged murders of Alton Sterling and Philando Castile.

Let's start with Alton Sterling. Well, his parents were giving an interview, and his dad was wearing a freemason ring. That's a tip-off, but the evidence really starts with the video. I'm going to refer you to two posts on Reddit, where the poster basically looks at the two videos and shows that one of the people taking the video should have been visible in part of the other person's video, but isn't. And of course both videos pan away at the moment of shooting. Somebody also commented that gunshots don't cause people to bleed so much so quickly. I don't know if that's true or not. Anyway, here is a link to both videos and to the reddit post:

Here is the first video:
full link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ckuUk9R5ES0

And here is the second video. When the camera pans to the left so we can see the shop, we should see somebody standing right there filming the scene from the perspective of the first video:

As for Castile, well, you just have to look at the video and decide for yourself if it looks real.

full link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HNCbgJ55jQY

The video comes from a facebook livestream started by his girlfriend, who was in the passenger seat when he was allegedly shot. Her daughter is supposed to be in the back seat (though we don't hear her until a later scene). There are several pertinent questions to ask yourself:

1. The video starts after he was shot. So she took out her phone and started recording a Facebook livestream after her boyfriend has been shot four times and the officer is standing there pointing his gun at them. Would he have let her take out her phone? Would she have reached for it? Assuming she had it in her hand in order to, say, film the interaction with the officer, why did she wait to start filming until after he was shot? Or assume it was in her hand because she was on facebook messaging with friends -- who the hell has the presence of mind to start a Facebook livestream in that situation?

2. Her demeanor is unbelievably calm and composed. And I don't mean unbelievably in the sense of 'amazingly.' I mean it is literally not believable.

3. Does her boyfriend look like he was shot 4 times? That cop must be one hell of a shot since all the bullets seem to have entered him within, say, a 5-inch area on his side. And his Razzie-worthy performance, "I told him not to reach for it! I told him to get his hand up!"

4. Her child is supposed to be in the back seat, but we don't hear her when they're in the car. Do you think a little child is going to witness her dad being shot 4 times by a cop and remain silent? No way! She'd be crying and screaming. So would the woman. She wouldn't be speechifying on a Facebook livefeed.

5. She was handcuffed by the police, right? So how does she manage to hold the phone when she's in the back of the police car later in the video?

Just to clarify, when I say "you" in the post, I don't mean "you" per se, hoi. I presume you see through these hoaxes. I mean 'you' in the abstract sense.

I agree that cops mistreating and harassing black people is a real phenomenon and a very real problem. However, I think that the two major police shooting incidents in the two days prior to the Dallas "shooting" were hoaxes, and I absolutely think they're tied into the Dallas hoax as part of a larger psyop that is seeking to stoke racial tensions or even start a race war (divide and conquer), de-legitimize the blacklivesmatter movement (which is itself a psyop meant to discredit or blackwash genuine protest against police brutality), legitimize the militarization of the police, condition us to permanent martial law AKA "lockdown," killer police robots, etc. etc.

If you see that and sense that, it could have been studied, put there, acknowledged or dismissed as part of the larger story, for sure.

I see it a little differently, but I don't think our views contrapose against each other. We have to examine the entire string of articles as people are meant to read them after the most potentially traumatic articles have sunk in. Therein lies the direction of the firehose we are meant to follow after we are all properly stirred up and in the streets of our minds, even if we're not looking for an action but just seeking dialogue.

The military game is to take legitimate attempts at bridging communication gaps and turning them into action and reaction. In short, their answer is consistently something like, "We cannot deign to talk to you as people talk, so choose a form of military aggression that we can be useful at."

The BlackLivesMatter movement is an organization that does discredit genuine protest, but the use of the passive voice in the words "is meant" does not address our forum members' mutual interest in the perpetrators and the reasons. Who means to "discredit" the largely successful movement (which can be considered militarily successful not because it is a covered and monitored movement but because it has consistently resisted being transformed into an actionable, non-dialogue centric movement)? Of course, if you don't want to engage in people with legitimate concerns and who have language about that, that's fine. I can understand how annoying youth and energy can be — how seemingly "out of control" and easy to manipulate. Yet, the dialogue in America about BlackLivesMatter (and the latest accoutrement "we support our Muslim friends") is, aside from this latest derailment effort an incredibly refreshing point of dialogue that was not covered by the media so much as latched onto with its meat hooks.

We saw very similar things with "Occupy WallStreet" which was the brainchild of legitimately concerned people and military intervention. Military intervention feels it must always try to be the rapist in charge of determining the offspring of populism and force. One of the first things that seems to happen with less successful populist uprisings is that the language is disrupted. There was a sort of agent provocateur at one of the Occupy groups I would attend who would consistently disrupt complex discussions with pleas to find his missing articles of clothing. He was constantly dispensing with the conversation and jarringly forcing everyone to break discussion. The inexperienced group had not set up a system in place to vet these people because some portion was unaware that such people existed or that they might work for the alphabet agencies/channels to slow down dialogue and get their hooks into it. That's why it's quite critical when we talk about these things on CluesForum that people understand there are agents trying to make their media into a national spectator sport, and movements that otherwise would be quite effective get disrupted by apathy, frustration and dramas created by provocateurs.

There is a "race war" already in place, in a sense, as I've been researching and writing about, and which we have been touching on here and there, (though occasionally with people like jumpy64 falling for the propaganda of one coalition or another). It appears to be between all major groups with power lust, but especially "Western Civilization"-lust, which needs to characterize some group as from a dramatically different Golden Age of noble inferiority. (Even if it's occasionally also the incredible culture of a competing imperial force.)

Let's see what articles have now come up lately.

Politics|Obama on Dallas: No Reprise of '60s Racial StrifeCruz: Obama has 'inflamed' racial tensions - CNNPolitics.comHow the Dallas shooting was despicably spun into a race warMother Jones: Trump's Facebook Fans Call for Race WarAlex Jones: Will Race War Cancel Elections?Slate: There Is a War Over Race in America But it’s not whites vs. blacks.

Number one Google term after typing "race" into the search engine: "Race War"

This is largely about the superficial discussion of race, for sure, but also Obama, destroying/infecting/controlling the legacy of "The First Black President" (besides Bill Clinton) and using that figurehead symbol to control dialogue about race, as Obama heads out of office and we are stuck looking head on at two corrupted White fools vying for the next position. With attention on Obama, they can direct everyone to what I suspect is the main drama here, even directly from his latest designed and prepared statements for these events:

"There is a racial issue" vs. "There is not a racial issue"

The outcome, in general, is going to be the 'leftists' trying to swing the talks to integration and the 'nationalists' trying to swing the talks to immigration. In short, this seems to be a deliberate attempt to dissolve the dialogue by taking over BlackLivesMatter with a drama, then cleanly and logistically eliminating it from the public dialogue under the weight of their PsyOps. There is something deeply racist about the affront, but it is hidden behind the White Fragility of a "political correctness" which seeks to always address matters under authoritative texts, stories and agendas.

To me, what this super-dialogue screams out (even while masking itself as "confusion" and "disarray" that "could start a race war") is a kind of "Endgame" against the fragility of America at this point. Probably by Jewish/Zionists/City of London/EU/UN/NATO that is dishonestly and melodramatically pointing out the superiority of "Western Civilization" over "disorderly" undeserving brown people that only fit into life by fitting into the dominant system of the super polis-State.

I am certain that there are some "loyal" (to people) government employees made impotent by the corrupt government and who are doing something to seed questions to people and poll them through the news and through measured reaction for good reason; they may think that by bringing a story or movement to national attention (as the military no doubt takes over, blinds and misleads the leadership of the movement) that they are running democracy, but the artificial "nation" is very large and this is their pathetic strategy rather than coming clean, blowing the whistle on the military intervention and cronyism, etc. I think even these well-meaning people might be deeply racist on the same level: super-State government must exist so that the military can continue its insecurity protocols against nature, sovereign people, etc.

BlackLivesMatter is just one more example of a brand developed by average people with some interest in a kind of national power that has been turned against itself in order to prevent large and necessary systemic changes. During constant discussions with people of these movements (let's face it, many of them are my dear friends) I am so frequently floored by the ignorance they demonstrate when I explain there are agents co-opting the movements that they have to be aware of. They understand the concept, but have no idea how to implement a vetting procedure that rids them of psychopaths. The obsessions with celebrity continue to creep in and invade and self-derail the movements. This is a weakness, like Simon points out the weakness in our visual judgement, in our deliberately numbed faculties. People-loving people don't want the responsibility of vetting people.

There was real hope in BlackLivesMatter, as people had slowly, painfully re-learned the trust in a political populist feeling, learned new trust in each other, unpolluted by big media. But once more, a few PsyOps sprinkled here and there quickly took over the discussion again.

To me, the major portion of the PsyOps we see from World War I through World War II through the War on Terrorism (and ongoing into what may be another abortive iteration of the constantly threatened World War III) is all about controlling and hijacking the human imagination for dialogue. (This is one of the reasons why I find television SitComs and Hollywood scripts so insidious and reiterative a control mechanism, but that's a discussion for another topic.)

On a smaller level, I think there are some other activities going on. There may be, for example, the anti-Constitution movement (that is being used by the powers that be) that wishes to disrupt and force changes in all laws and safeguards against bad governance, and one of them will have us all clamoring for a third term for Obama, or bemoaning that Obama could not get a third term. The effect on Europeans I know (besides those especially intelligent friends that can look more skeptically at the whole "campaign" in America) is that "Obama has his hands tied!" and "His job is so hard, though he wants to do good." and they seem nervous about America's next leader rather than their own leaders, which is a bit befuddling (not because it doesn't make sense if explained, but there is a communication gap between Euro and American Western thought caused by mutual superiority complexes and misunderstandings about each other's systems in the general populace; on the American side, many "average" America-centric American folks say: why does Europe have any business caring what happens here?).

However, the main thing I see in addition to all those points about creating micro-dramas which you brought up, is to take from the people their right to run their own discussions and therefore to create and manage government in everyone's interest. The military cults can't seem to turn themselves off when there is peace. And when there really is a deep racism in government that manifests as cultural disagreements, those are going to be pitted against each other on all levels. We don't have to buy into it.

hoi.polloi wrote:That's why it's quite critical when we talk about these things on CluesForum that people understand there are agents trying to make their media into a national spectator sport, and movements that otherwise would be quite effective get disrupted by apathy, frustration and dramas created by provocateurs.

Excellent point! I would also add that (while your characterization of it as a "national spectator sport" is by no means incorrect) it is also intended to be a "sport" whereby people don't merely spectate, but actively carry forth the stories into their real lives and slap them around with fiends and foe alike. The effect is to essentially disarm the people (intellectually and emotionally) from ever presenting a threat to the status quo. Of course I'm not enlightening you on this topic, but it's rather the way I tend to perceive what is happening.

Because this Dallas Police story is so close to home for us, my wife and I have been seriously discussing how to practically deal with all this information and the fact that so many genuinely intelligent and delightful people around us (that have just never taken a moment to question the images and stories they have been pelted with their entire lives) are truly upset about "what's going on".

We don't want to appear heartless, but at the same time we refuse to affirm what they believe about these stories in any way. It's not an easy line to walk. Thankfully we don't have many family members or friends that feel either free or brave enough (or they simply respect us too much to do such an idiotic thing) to goad us into taking a position on a given alleged event.

Also, since my wife is "on fakebook" (quite passively so I might add) she does keep me apprised of the nonsense being posted and spread around. That way we will at least know what the people around us are likely to bring up when we see them in person. It's actually helpful to me for purposes of either containing, redirecting, or even confronting/challenging whatever it may be if the topic comes up.

hoi.polloi wrote:This is one of the reasons why I find television SitComs and Hollywood scripts so insidious and reiterative a control mechanism, but that's a discussion for another topic.)

That could very well be an interesting topic, and I look forward to it getting posted one day- perhaps I'll add that to my list of things to work on.

hoi.polloi wrote:On a smaller level, I think there are some other activities going on. There may be, for example, the anti-Constitution movement (that is being used by the powers that be) that wishes to disrupt and force changes in all laws and safeguards against bad governance, and one of them will have us all clamoring for a third term for Obama, or bemoaning that Obama could not get a third term. The effect on Europeans I know (besides those especially intelligent friends that can look more skeptically at the whole "campaign" in America) is that "Obama has his hands tied!" and "His job is so hard, though he wants to do good." and they seem nervous about America's next leader rather than their own leaders, which is a bit befuddling (not because it doesn't make sense if explained, but there is a communication gap between Euro and American Western thought caused by mutual superiority complexes and misunderstandings about each other's systems in the general populace; on the American side, many "average" America-centric American folks say: why does Europe have any business caring what happens here?).

There are so many "other activities going on" that I won't even pretend to know what they all are. On a very REAL level my fear and suspicion is that the local cops in my area (who don't know anything about the psy-op nature of this event) will be extra aggressive when "detaining" and/or arresting people that they have been led to believe constitute "domestic terrorists".

But I'll find out very soon (and I could be wrong) since I represent the accused for a living. If there's anything out of the normal I'll report it back here since you can rest assured most actual brutality will never be mentioned in the sanitized media.

Thank you for your insight into what people are talking about re "0bama's hands tied" etc. I come across those that say he "won't leave office and will impose martial law" fairly often. Such people are too entwined in the SIMULATION GAMES (I sort of stole your material to come up with the name of the "sport" discussed above-sorry )to be extracted in a single conversation (if ever to be in their lives), but sometimes they are open to feedback, and will entertain an objective discussion of the system, and finally questioning its underlying authenticity. Such moments are a "win" in my book.

The acting doesn't seem to be getting any better in these staged events. 'Hero' Dallas mother Shetamia Taylor doesn't know whether to laugh or cry when recounting the harrowing events that involved her and her sons in the Dallas shooting.

Considering what happened to jumpy64, I am hesitant to bring this up; however, in light of the latest race war PSYOP, I consider it quite relevant. it just seems like such a glaring omission on a forum that supposedly is willing to go wherever the evidence leads. Is it not possible to address the issue of "race realism" in a respectful manner, that is not alienating to Cluesforum's international readership? It is simply a fact that blacks in the US commit vastly disproportionate amounts of violent crime (according to government statistics, young black males commit almost half of all murders, despite being only ~3% of the population), including interracial crimes. While certain weaponized sociocultural forces (welfare and its destruction of the black family, COINTELPRO, the spreading of crack into the ghettos, gangsta rap, etc.) have certainly exacerbated the problem, I believe biological factors also play a role. The destruction of James Watson's career for daring to mention that there are racial differences in IQ is, for me, a pretty big red flag. The entire notion that the US criminal justice system is "systematically racist" is a myth deployed to hide the cultural and genetic influences on violent criminal behavior. Scientific research into racial difference was conveniently "discredited" after World War 2, thanks to the Holocaust fable (is it just a coincidence that Ashkenazi Jews have the highest average verbal IQ?). In my opinion, "racial tension" will only get worse unless these biosocial factors are acknowledged.

starfish prime wrote:The entire notion that the US criminal justice system is "systematically racist" is a myth deployed to hide the cultural and genetic influences on violent criminal behavior. Scientific research into racial difference was conveniently "discredited" after World War 2, thanks to the Holocaust fable (is it just a coincidence that Ashkenazi Jews have the highest average verbal IQ?).

Dear starfish prime,

Let me first briefly comment on the relationship between criminal behavior and, well, what goes by the name of "IQ".

Here's what former Fortune editor Daniel Seligman, author of "A question of intelligence: The IQ Debate in America" (which claimed that Intelligence quotient is at least partially heritable and that there are meaningful differences in IQ between races) had to say about this topic:

"In the book "A Question of Intelligence", author Daniel Seligman notes that mob leader John Gotti had a tested IQ of 110. Seligman found this figure to be quite plausible because criminals average IQ’s around 90, so an IQ of 110 was enough for Gotti to climb to the top of the crime world. Similarly, Charles Manson had a tested IQ in the 109-121 range. The people who killed for Manson probably had IQ’s around 90, but Manson being about 19-31 points higher, could easily manipulate them."https://brainsize.wordpress.com/tag/john-gotti/

In other words, it would appear that a high IQ is not considered as some sort of 'obstacle or impediment' to criminal behavior - on the contrary, perhaps... Conversely, I honestly don't think that a lower IQ equates, statistically speaking, to a "higher propensity of committing crimes".

Now, it so happens that David Seligman (whose 'ethnic origin' should be obvious) is among the most prominent proponents that "Jews have a higher average level of intelligence than non-Jewish whites of European origin". Here's a quote from the introduction of Richard Lynn's 'academic' treatise titled "The intelligence of American Jews" (published by the infamous 'socio-scientific' Elsevier publishing group - founded several hundred years ago by Isaac and Abraham Elzevir) :

1. IntroductionIt has often been asserted that Jews have a higher average level of intelligence than non-Jewishwhites of European origin. Herrnstein and Murray (1994, p. 275) have written that ‘‘Wheneverthe subject of group differences comes upon of the questions sure to be asked is ‘Are Jews reallysmarter than everyone else?’ and their answer to this question is an affirmative. Eysenck (1995,p. 159) asserted that ‘‘As far as Jews are concerned, there is no question that they score veryhighly on IQ tests’’. Levin (1997, p. 132) has written that ‘‘in every society in which they haveparticipated, Jews have eventually been recognised (and disliked for) their exceptional talent’’.Seligman (1992, p. 133) writes of ‘‘the extraordinarily high Jewish g levels’’

Let's now have a look at some of the above-cited 'scholars' who share (and have actively promoted) this "jews-are-smarter" contention, namely Richard J Herrnstein, Hans Eysenck and Michael Levin (needless to say, all of Jewish 'ethnicity' / 'descent' / 'origin' / 'racial minority group ' - or whatever we should 'correctly' call it.):

Richard J Herrnstein :

"Challenging a taboo among intellectuals and social scientists, Herrnstein and Murray argued that intelligence was measurable by IQ tests, stable over the lifetime of the individual, largely heritable, and predictive of a variety of social outcomes (even when confounding factors were controlled) such as income, crime, health, and rates of marriage. In his 1971 article, Herrnstein argued that as racism and class bias diminished, and cognitive abilities came to play a greater role in technology-driven economies, heritable differences would account for a larger proportion of class differences, and could eventually lead to a genetic, meritocratic caste structure. Most controversially, Herrnstein and Murray suggested in one chapter that the black-white IQ gap would be difficult to eliminate, in part because its causes were both genetic and environmental. Despite the authors’ insistence that a genetic contribution to race differences was not central to their argument, this hypothesis dominated the critical discussion of the book, and remains controversial even among scientists who accept their other conclusions. The analyses in The Bell Curve are still widely debated today."http://psychology.fas.harvard.edu/peopl ... herrnstein

In Commentary in April 2007, Charles Murray, the coauthor of The Bell Curve (1994), again made the claim that “Jews are smarter” than everyone else (Murray, 2007). In The Bell Curve, he and his late (and Jewish) coauthor, Richard Herrnstein, first presented their argument about the intellectual superiority of “Ashkenazic Jews of European origins,” who “test higher than any other ethnic group (Murray and Herrnstein, 1994). Excerpt from "Are Jews smarter than everyone else?" http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3190562/

Hans Eysenck

"Hans Jürgen Eysenck, PhD, DSc (4 March 1916 – 4 September 1997) was a psychologist born in Germany, who spent his professional career in Great Britain. He is best remembered for his work on intelligence and personality, although he worked in a wide range of areas within psychology. At the time of his death, Eysenck was the living psychologist most frequently cited in the peer-reviewed scientific journal literature."(...)"Eysenck was brought up by his maternal grandmother (although his grandmother was a fervent Lutheran, after her death in a concentration camp, Eysenck ascertained that she apparently had come from a Jewish family). An initial move to England in the 1930s became permanent because of his opposition to the Nazi party. "My hatred of Hitler and the Nazis, and all they stood for, was so overwhelming that no argument could counter it."https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hans_Eysenck

Michael LevinAuthor of "Why Race Matters". Here we have - in a nutshell - the 'Michael Levin intellectual standpoint' on the race / intelligence topic :

"As Prof. Levin points out, a book like Why Race Matters should not have to be written. The only sensible conclusion to be drawn from simple observation is that races differ: “To put the matter bluntly, the question is not why anyone would believe the races are unequal in intelligence, but why anyone would believe them equal.” For centuries, people as different as Arabs and Englishmen have judged Africans to be unintelligent, lascivious, jolly, and keen on rhythm. Today, in whatever corner of the globe one looks, blacks behave in certain consistent ways."

I say: so what? WHO has ever contended that we are all equally intelligent on this world? Should dumb people be rounded up and shot? And talking about 'black crime', am I wrong in thinking that whites and Jews - to name but two generally-more-privileged 'racial groups' - commit FAR more frequent, and FAR more socially destructive crimes than black people - the only difference being that they hardly ever get punished, let alone shot dead by policemen on the street?

I suppose that it's just 'coincidental' that the above clowns peddling this pseudo-intellectual garbage-psyence are all 'influential Jews' and I submit that they're all - each one of them - thick as a brick.

As a Jew, I say thisI am an Ashkenazi Jew, and I agree that to describe any ethnic group as more intelligent than another is, as said, pseudo-scientific racism. This article epitomizes such, and I fully condone its deletion. That is in hopes that such articles, or references to such, will never again be found on Wikipedia. This is an encyclopedia, not a breeding ground for biased theories which provide no credence to the advancement of any science.

"Going wherever the evidence leads" is not, strictly, our MO, because we have to walk the balance of what all cultures can agree is evidence. That is based on the five (or more) senses, okay? Not inherent presumptions that someone of any particular race simply cannot understand what we're talking about as well.

Ask the Black community how experienced they are in detecting bullshit from the government and then tell me all their reasons are because they are morons. Ha! Good luck pardner! Just as we will always sideline and "table" discussions of UFOs and aliens and woo-woo topics, it's probably good to develop practices of putting aside personal world view discussions which also alienate people.

I also would like to remind you that certain — ahem — "civilizations" have designed "IQ tests" and I've met plenty of extremely intelligent people who don't do well under a variety of conditions that these "civilizations" have set up, but thrive under different conditions.

Let's please remain on topic. We're not taking the talking points that the PsyOp designed for us to talk about, here. We're discussing how PsyOps drag us into such discussions and divide people. However, if you want to venture to start (yet) another topic on the clash of civilizations and cultures, may I suggest you patiently re-read this thread and add to it? viewtopic.php?f=27&t=1636&hilit=civilizations+collide (It seems to be our DERAILING ROOM for race disagreements. And I guarantee you I will challenge and re-challenge you on your biases permitted the time we end up wasting there and provided Simon doesn't forbid it or become irate at me for defending any hated group of the moment. Yup, I'll even defend white people and Christians.)

What do IQ tests measure? That which is most susceptible to quantification, i.e. the least qualitative of the attributes above.

****************ADMIN NOTICE(simon): I have moved this comment by Flabbergasted from the "Chatbox" over here - as I don't think we're really derailing this thread with our "IQ" discussions. After all, millions of people still think it's OK to frame black people ("since they are inferior, less worthy / intelligent human beings") and relish to see the 'race-wars' getting inflamed by those fake media stories which we are regularly exposing here - such as this inane "7/7 Dallas shooting" and its "11 police officers being shot by sniper" .

For sure, dear Flabbergasted, we (humanity) have not even BEGUN to decently define the actual meaning of 'IQ'.

starfish prime wrote:It is simply a fact that blacks in the US commit vastly disproportionate amounts of violent crime (according to government statistics, young black males commit almost half of all murders, despite being only ~3% of the population), including interracial crimes.

So the f**k what? What does blacks killing blacks have to do with cops killing people without cause? How does black-on-black violence justify or minimize the vile evilness of white cops killing black men without cause? Murder. And you're OK with that because some black people are thugs? Shame.

[Apologies to Simon for venting my spleen, but I cannot abide people blaming the victim instead of blaming the wrongdoer.]

starfish prime wrote:It is simply a fact that blacks in the US commit vastly disproportionate amounts of violent crime (according to government statistics, young black males commit almost half of all murders, despite being only ~3% of the population), including interracial crimes.

So the f**k what? What does blacks killing blacks have to do with cops killing people without cause? How does black-on-black violence justify or minimize the vile evilness of white cops killing black men without cause? Murder. And you're OK with that because some black people are thugs? Shame.

[Apologies to Simon for venting my spleen, but I cannot abide people blaming the victim instead of blaming the wrongdoer.]

It is not just black-on-black violence. According to US Bureau of Justice Statistics National Crime Victimization Survey, in interracial violent crimes involving whites and blacks, the perpetrator is black ~85% of the time. You can see for yourself by looking here, selecting a .pdf, finding Table 42, and comparing number of white-on-black to black-on-white crimes. Unfortunately, Table 42 has been scrubbed from the most recent years...

What is your evidence that white cops systematically kill black men without cause? I am not saying that such tragic events never occur, but most of these "unjustified cop shootings" are flagrantly misrepresented by the media (assuming they are real at all, and I have no doubt some are fake, such as the utterly ridiculous "Walter Scott shooting"). Here is a study demonstrating that black cops are actually more likely to shoot a suspect than white cops:

Black officers had more than three times greater odds of shooting than white officers. This finding runs counter to concerns that white officers are overrepresented among officers using lethal force, but is consistent with numerous previous studies of officer race and police use-of-force. Police legitimacy requires communities to diversify their police departments to make them more representative of the citizens served. However, a deeper understanding of police officer race is necessary since recent research suggests diversity does not make officers safer (Barrick et al., 2014) and this research does not suggest diversity will reduce the risk of police shootings.

And from "An Empirical Analysis of Racial Differences in Police Use of Force":

In stark contrast to non-lethal uses of force, we find no racial differences in officer-involved shootings on either the extensive or intensive margins. Using data from Houston, Texas – where we have both officer-involved shootings and a randomly chosen set of potential interactions with police where lethal force may have been justified – we find, in the raw data, that blacks are 23.8 percent less likely to be shot at by police relative to whites. Hispanics are 8.5 percent less likely. Both coefficients are statistically insignificant. Adding controls for civilian demographics, officer demographics, encounter characteristics, type of weapon civilian was carrying, and year fixed effects, the black (resp. Hispanic) coefficient is 0.924 (0.417) (resp. 1.256 (0.595)). These coefficients are remarkably robust across alternative empirical specifications and subsets of the data. Partitioning the data in myriad ways, we find no evidence of racial discrimination in officer-involved shootings. Investigating the intensive margin – the timing of shootings or how many bullets were discharged in the endeavor – there are no detectable racial differences.

Even according to the "official story," Alton Sterling was a violent pedophile, who was resisting arrest (after repeated tasings) while in possession of a deadly weapon. Whatever you think of the police, this is suicide-by-cop, not murder. As for the extremely suspicious "Philando [like philanthropist?] Castile shooting" (supposedly committed by a Hispanic officer), have you seen the footage? Was that event not obviously staged?

And here is a completely-emotionless, obviously-scripted interview with Castile's mother and uncle (the uncle is even wearing his Masonic lapel pin), not even 12 hours after the "shooting":

full link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZuhbAZ6hlH4

Edit: I was looking at Alton Sterling's arrest record, and realized: wasn't it claimed that Alton Sterling was simply selling "CD's" at the time of the shooting? However, CDS does not refer to compact discs, but rather "Controlled Dangerous Substance"

I think your best points are on subject, starfish prime. There is a lot of fakery going on.

There are also realities that the fakery aims to twist. We are all targeted by the fakery. Under all "demographics" we are put under. We tend to cite things that make us think they are helping us understand the complexity without actually talking with and befriending members of different cultures.

One thing is certain: racial discussions are over-simplified by a media unwilling to talk about it openly and evenly, and which has its chosen sponsors and demographic representatives for particular legislative agendas. I hope that all of us can eventually evolve beyond tendencies to over-simplification of issues that are sensitive and which cause conflict when we don't acknowledge the complexity.

hoi.polloi wrote:I think your best points are on subject, starfish prime. There is a lot of fakery going on.

Even if he is right about every recent incident being faked, it doesn't justify his throwing in malicious irrelevancies about black-on-black crime that influence the reader to conclude it just doesn't matter when white cops hurt/kill black men without cause. Even one incident of 'white cop killing black man' is too many, and the ongoing repugnant focus on black-on-black killing delegitimizes the evilness of such white/black killings.

This pretty much exactly parallels the ongoing right-wing attack on the Black Lives Matter movement which quite purposefully delegitimizes the desire of minority communities not to have their men butchered by police.